<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>By that logic Joshua, we should not allow any media to cover our presidential nominating conventions, and we should prohibit delegates from talking about any of the candidates other than those who are eventually nominated!</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Worrying that by publicly rejecting something we will be tied in the public mind to the thing we reject seems crazy to me. I mean, think about it – we publicly reject statism and big government (and I for one will fight to ensure that we continue to do so)! Is it possible that some confused individuals will associate us with the things that we reject in our platform and communications? Of course. Some people will remain confused no matter what we say or do. But this is not a reason to try to hide the positions we take on stuff.</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>If an employee were consistently proposing materials for publication that were being rejected by the APRC, that fact <b><i>should</i></b> be widely known. Either we would have an APRC making unreasonable decisions, or an employee regularly seeking to publish materials at odds with the party's goals, and in either case our members would deserve to know.</div><div><br></div><div>Love & Liberty,</div><div> ((( starchild )))</div><div>At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (2016-2018)</div><div> <a href="mailto:RealReform@earthlink.net">RealReform@earthlink.net</a></div><div> (415) 625-FREE</div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On Jun 23, 2016, at 6:22 AM, Joshua Katz wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">I could be wrong, but I've always thought of it this way:<div><br></div><div>Consider the case where the APRC turns down a publication. We're saying, in effect "we don't want this to be put out in the name of the party." The APRC is the way the LNC exercises its obligation to control what is said in our name. Now, suppose that the proposed publication, together with APRC deliberations, were made public. The publication we said we don't want to go out in our name, would be out to the public, forwarded and shared as much as desired, with our name stamped on it. In effect, making the APRC discussion public has the impact of saying we can't turn down anything from being said in our name. </div><div><br></div><div>The employer-employee part I take to mean if, say, some employee were consistently having their proposed publications shot down by the APRC, they wouldn't want that information known to the world. </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Joshua A. Katz<div>Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)</div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:carynannharlos@gmail.com" target="_blank">carynannharlos@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Okay, I have a few questions. First of all, I am very grateful to have been appointed to that Committee as I am enjoying it very much and keeps me on my toes.<div><br></div><div>My question though has to do with its secrecy. Now that I have participated a bit to have a grasp of what it is that we do, I am not sure I understand the justification for its deliberations and discussions to be secret.</div><div><br></div><div>In reviewing the Policy Manual it categorizes the discussions as sounding in employer-employee confidentiality, but I don't see how that is the broad case. I can imagine a situation in which that might arise, but why make the whole thing secret for a circumstance that would be rare... which seems to me to be like making all LNC meetings secret because a legal matter might come up.... instead we wall off the truly confidential matters.</div><div><br></div><div>I am not saying I am opposed to it being secret, but I am saying that I am not sure I understand the necessity and justification and would like to know what it is. I believe in openness and transparency to the extent possible that will not actively harm the organization.</div><div><br></div><div>Realistically there are probably two oddballs like me in the whole Party that would actually read the whole thing. But that shouldn't stop us from removing the veil from things that do not need to be. And I think secrecy policies should be re-evaluated regularly.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:12.8px">In Liberty,</div><div style="font-size:12.8px">Caryn Ann Harlos</div><div style="font-size:12.8px">Region 1 Representative </div><div style="font-size:12.8px">(Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><a href="mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org">Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org</a></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</font></span></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
_______________________________________________<br>Lnc-business mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>